Department for Education

A World-Class Teaching Profession

Lord Nash: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan MP) has made the following announcement:  The driving force behind the delivery of this Government’s plan for education is a world-class teaching profession. We share a common goal with thousands of dedicated professionals in classrooms throughout the country: of improving the lives of children and young people, and preparing them for success in modern Britain. We are committed to taking action that promotes and supports the development of the teaching profession. In December last year, the Minister of State for Schools and I launched a consultation setting out what we believe Government can do to give teachers that support. Today we are announcing our plan of action designed to help teachers improve the quality of their professional development, and to strengthen the professional leadership of teaching overall. Alongside this we are publishing a report detailing the responses to the consultation that have led us to this plan. The absence of a professional body, independent of Government, marks teaching out from other professions. We agree with the many teachers and school leaders who believe that the existence of such a body – set up and owned by teachers for teachers – could be a power for good in raising the professional status of teaching, and improving the development opportunities available to its members. What we have seen in other professions, such as law and medicine, is that their professional bodies’ play a leading role in advancing practice and we believe a College of Teaching would be no different, becoming a key plank of our vision of a self-improving school led system. For that reason we invited expressions of interest from organisations seeking to establish a new College of Teaching, and we set out our offer of Government support to make that new College a reality. The Minister of State and I are today announcing that we intend to work with the “Claim Your College” consortium – a coalition of leading organisations in the education sector – in support of their proposal to establish a new College of Teaching. The College of Teaching is expected to be fully independent of Government, established and led by teachers. It is intended that its start-up costs will be met by a significant injection of Government funding, along with funding from a range of other sources. We, as well as the organisations and individuals leading this project, are clear that support must be offered wholly in recognition of the new body’s independence from Government. But if Government can play any part in facilitating this important step towards promoting the professional status of teachers and teaching, then it is right that we should do so. In the longer term, a new professional body could play a leading role in the promotion of high-quality professional development for teachers. A commitment to high-quality, evidence-based professional development is one of the defining characteristics of all great professions. Teachers should be able to fulfil their own passion for knowledge and betterment by pursuing learning opportunities throughout their careers, enhancing their own practice and at the same time securing better outcomes for their pupils. Responses to the consultation, however, confirmed that teachers still face significant barriers in identifying and accessing those high-quality professional development opportunities, based on sound evidence of what works. Recognising the critical importance of high-quality professional development, we proposed to support teachers with a new, high-profile fund for professional development programmes. These would be delivered under the leadership of the growing Teaching Schools network, and rigorously evaluated for impact. Programmes supported by the fund would help to ensure that many more teachers have access to high-quality development opportunities, particularly teachers working in those schools which have the greatest need for additional support. This proposal was positively received. So we are today confirming that we intend to invite Teaching Schools to bid for funding – for projects worth up to £300,000 each – to deliver high-quality, evidence-based professional development. The growing reach of the Teaching Schools network, and the broad alliances of schools that they work with, will ensure that access to high-quality professional development opportunities becomes a reality for many more teachers. Our announcement today is for the first phase of this scalable fund, for which we are making up to £5million available in the first year. We will consider extending this amount based on demand and we hope that this step will be the first of many, helping build and secure a robust evidence base for teachers to draw upon.Our proposal to work with the sector to establish a new, online portal to facilitate the sharing of evidence about proven approaches to professional development was also well received. We therefore intend to continue working closely with sector organisations to further explore how we might support the establishment and effective use of a new forum, not least to ensure that the rigorous evaluations of programmes funded through the Professional Development Fund become freely available to all teachers, in formats that will allow the findings to translate easily into practice. Doing so will help to ensure that, in future, teachers are able to make better-informed decisions about the professional development they undertake, based on evidence of what is proven to work in practice. Alongside the consultation we also committed to establish an expert group tasked with producing a new Standard for Teachers’ Professional Development. This standard will set out a clear and succinct statement of the key elements of effective professional development practice, helping to shape both the demand for and supply of high-quality development opportunities for teachers. The Minister of State and I are pleased to be able to announce the appointment of David Weston, Chief Executive of the Teacher Development Trust, to chair the new expert group. We expect that the group will submit its report to Ministers early next year.Copies of the consultation report will be placed in the libraries of both Houses.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS429

Ministry of Defence

Iraq Fatalities Investigations

Lord Astor of Hever: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Michael Fallon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I wish to inform the House of progress in responding to the High Court’s decision in 2013 that a process akin to a Coroner’s inquest be established to examine a small number of fatalities of Iraqi nationals arising from UK operations in Iraq where the deceased person was in the custody of or under the control of UK forces.Sir George Newman today publishes his report into the deaths of Mr Nadheem Abdullah on 11 May 2003 and Mr Hassan Abbas Said on 2 August 2003. Sir George’s Terms of Reference do not include making findings on any person’s criminal or civil liability but he has carefully examined the deaths of the two men and has considered the wider circumstances that contributed to them.The report concludes that Mr Abdullah died after soldiers from 3 PARA used excessive force in restraining and searching him and the vehicle in which he was travelling after it avoided a vehicle checkpoint on 11 May 2003. With regard to the death of Mr Said, the report concludes that he died when a soldier attached to 1 KINGS fired a single shot after he attempted to seize the barrel of his rifle, and appeared to reach for the pistol of the soldier attempting to handcuff him. There is evidence that Mr Said was one of several men who fled when challenged by the 1 KINGS patrol for pushing a cart containing ammunition.Sir George has made a single recommendation, which I have accepted in principle, that focused training on policing and peacekeeping roles in hostile and potentially life-threatening situations should be provided to any service personnel deploying on similar operations in future.In the light of the facts as found by Sir George, and in particular the finding that excessive force was used, I wish to express the Government’s regret at the death of Mr Abdullah in particular. We are prepared to pay appropriate compensation to his family. The soldiers in both cases have already been prosecuted and acquitted, and will not face fresh prosecutions as a result of these inquiries.I expect to establish one or more further such non-statutory inquiries into other fatalities during Operation Telic within the coming months.

Government Pipeline  and Storage System Sale Update

Lord Astor of Hever: My hon Friend the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology (Mr Philip Dunne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I am pleased to announce the successful sale of the Government Pipeline and Storage System (GPSS) to Compañía Logística de Hidrocarburos (CLH) of Spain for £82 million, following a competitive sale process. This means that I am close to completing the three major elements of the Asset Management Programme that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) launched following the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. I have previously announced the successful sale of the Defence Support Group land business to Babcock for £140 million, along with a 10-year contract to buy back services. The contract will save the Army around £500 million over that period – a saving of over a third. Last month I announced that Solent Gateway had been selected as preferred bidder for the concession to manage, and exploit the commercial potential of, the Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre – again generating significant savings to Defence. The sale of the GPSS leads to a further substantial receipt of £82 million. It also allows the Government to transfer its commercial fuel transportation business to the private sector, while still preserving the GPSS’s military capability and ensuring national resilience is not compromised. As part of the transaction, an enduring contract has been agreed between the Secretary of State for Defence and CLH, which will protect the provision of GPSS-supplied aviation fuel to UK military bases, including those supporting US visiting forces; over the first 10 years of the contract the MOD share will cost some £237 million.  CLH will bring unique experience to the operation of GPSS as it operates and maintains a network of oil pipelines (over 4,000 km) and storage systems serving major airports across Spain. In addition it provides fuel transportation services (including storage and pipeline facilities) to military customers in Spain. Of the staff employed by the Oil and Pipelines Agency, the Government body which manages the GPSS, just under 80 are in scope of the sale and will become CLH employees on completion of the sale, expected to occur on 30 April 2015. They will transfer under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) regulations which will protect their terms and conditions of service. The GPSS sale does not include the six UK Oil Fuel Depots owned by the MOD, which will continue to be operated and maintained by the residual Oil and Pipelines Agency. In summary, this sale will generate a significant sale receipt while placing the GPSS network on a sustainable long-term footing, ensuring that the capability to supply aviation fuel to UK military bases and civil airports is retained.

Department for Transport

Publication of the Highways England Framework Document

Baroness Kramer: My Right Honourable Friend, the Minister of State for Transport (John Hayes), has made the following Ministerial Statement:Last week I announced to the house the formal appointment of Highways England as the strategic highways company with effect from 1 April 2015and published a number of key governance documents.   Today I am publishing the final part of the formal governance framework, the Highways England Framework Document. This sets out the relationship with Government, especially the arrangements for accountability to Parliament and stewardship of public money.   As I have made clear before, Ministers will continue to be accountable for making sure the network is managed responsibly, in a way that safeguards value for public investment and meets the needs of road users and wider society, both today and for future generations. A copy of this Framework document has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/roads-reform 



b.	Annex C to the Framework Document (the Protocol
(PDF Document, 259 KB)




The Framework Document 
(PDF Document, 419.79 KB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS430

Triennial Review of Passenger Focus

Baroness Kramer: My Honourable Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry) has made the following Ministerial Statement: I am today publishing the report of the Triennial Review of Passenger Focus (PF).   The review has considered the continuing need for PF’s functions and the case for it to remain a non-departmental public body (NDPB). It has also looked at the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that PF is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.   PF represents the interests of rail passengers in England, Scotland and Wales, bus and tram passengers in England (outside of London) and passengers on scheduled domestic coach services in England. It will shortly be taking on a new additional role representing users of the strategic road network in England.   I am pleased to announce the conclusion of the review and the publication of the report.   The report concludes that the functions of PF are still necessary, that it remains the right body for delivering them and that PF should remain a NDPB (Stage 1 of the review). The report also concludes that PF is managed to a high standard with well-structured and effective governance systems in place, with only a few minor administrative issues which should be capable of being quickly addressed (Stage 2 of the review).   Although the review did not consider in detail PF’s future role in relation to highways, the report comments that the organisation appears to be in good shape to take this on, with well-established structures and procedures, and led by an effective and well-engaged Board.   The report also says that with substantial change and expansion of scope imminent as PF takes on the highways role, it is right that PF is undertaking a review of its current structure and funding arrangements to ensure they remain fit for purpose.   I would like to thank Andrew Murray for carrying out a thorough analysis of PF and its governance arrangements, and PF for their assistance as well as all the other stakeholders who were involved during the course of the review.   The review was conducted in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance (Guidance on reviews of non-departmental public bodies, June 2011).   The report is available on GOV.UK and I have made available copies in the libraries of the House. 



Report of the Triennial Review of Passenger Focus 
(PDF Document, 619.39 KB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS432

EU Transport Council

Baroness Kramer: My Right Honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Transport (Patrick McLoughlin), has made the following Ministerial Statement: I attended the first Transport Council under the Latvian Presidency (the Presidency) in Brussels on Friday 13 March. The first item on the agenda was a policy debate on the Fourth Railway Package. The Presidency sought further guidance on the market pillar of the package in order to reach their ambition of achieving a General Approach by June. I set out the great success of our liberalised market and urged Member States to grasp the opportunity of the market pillar to develop a true single market for rail and support a vibrant, competitive and sustainable rail sector across Europe. The debate on the three key issues identified by the Presidency – the independence of infrastructure managers and ex-ante oversight role of regulatory bodies on appointments to infrastructure boards under the governance file and how to ensure non-discriminatory access to rolling stock under the public service obligation file – drew a split response. On governance, I had strong support from a range of Member States for the approach that a truly separated model was the most effective remedy against potential discrimination by the infrastructure manager towards the railway undertakings, and that additional regulation was not required in such cases.   On providing non-discriminatory access to rolling stock to ensure an effective opening of the market, I shared our positive experience of establishing a leasing market. Whilst all Member States recognised the need to address this barrier, many Member States pressed for flexibility to choose from a “toolbox” of options.   There was a call for a progressive move towards competitive tendering to avoid market failure from a sudden change, and mixed views on reciprocity measures if a long transition period were granted. The differing needs of Member States under fierce competition from bordering third countries was highlighted and consideration of the social dimension of new operators entering the market was requested.   The Presidency presented a paper on EU competitiveness and transport policy, focussing particularly on the funding opportunities from the new European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). Commissioner Bulc then stressed three key principles: firstly, the need to invest in infrastructure and the shortfall within the EU for such activities; secondly, the need to embrace innovation for example, autonomous vehicles; and, thirdly, the need to remove technical and legal barriers to enable the transport sector to grow.   Other Member States views included the need to invest in innovation; the importance of the EFSI fund; less regulatory burdens; and State Aid rules becoming more permissive to help ensure that there was a level playing field with non-European countries.   I emphasised the importance of preparing projects so that they were ready to begin by the end of the year and called upon the Commissioner to return to Council to outline which transport projects were being funded by EFSI so that the existing grant mechanisms could be reviewed in light of developments there. Commissioner Bulc agreed to my request to report back on EFSI transport funding and repeated that her key mission was to ensure that EU transport policy was built around citizens and industry needs.   Under any other business the Presidency informed Council about the forthcoming Asia European meeting of Transport Ministers on 29-30 April in Riga, noting that increasing trade between Europe and Asia called for enhanced connectivity.   The Presidency updated Council on the outcome of the Conference on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems on 5 – 6 March in Riga, drawing attention to the Riga Declaration which summarised the key principles of developing a risk-based and light-touch approach to regulation but with sufficient speed to provide the necessary investment conditions in this fast-developing sector.   Commissioner Bulc updated Council on actions taken following the downing of aircraft MH17 over Ukraine in July 2014, and encouraged Member States to support the European Aviation Safety Agency’s mechanism for sharing civil and military risk assessments of civil aviation flights over conflict zones.   The Commission delivered a presentation on their Energy Union Communication of 25 February, emphasising that the goal of decarbonised transport called for a gradual transformation of the entire transport system. The Commission believe that their planned Road Package, to be published in 2016, will address reducing CO2 emissions from vehicles felt that success would depend upon Member State actions, not least in implementing alternative fuels infrastructure and supporting local authority sustainable urban mobility plans.   Lastly, France and Germany called for a comprehensive air transport agreement between the EU and the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as a means to persuade the GCC to adopt “fair competition” principles. Germany emphasised that if the conditions of fair competition and limited market opening were achieved, she would be willing to consider a mandate for a comprehensive agreement with the GCC. Both Member States pressed their support for the Commission to bring forward a revision or replacement of Regulation (EC) 868/2004 on protection against subsidisation and unfair pricing.   Several Member States supported this position whilst the need to address distorted working conditions within the EU was highlighted. I advocated the wider benefits of liberalised international air transport for both business and the consumer in UK and across Europe through the creation of jobs and growth, better regional connectivity and improved customer choice and quality. I noted the potential benefits of a comprehensive air transport agreement and a review of the unfair pricing regulation but urged Member States not to lose sight of the value of Europe’s relationship with the GCC states in air transport which extends to purchases from EU manufacturers.   The Commission suggested it may proceed with a comprehensive air transport agreement as a means to send a strong and united EU position to the GCC states whilst its work would continue on bringing forward a revised or entirely new Regulation 868/2004 with sufficient teeth to be effective. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS431

Rail Franchising

Baroness Kramer: My Right Honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Transport (Patrick McLoughlin), has made the following Ministerial Statement:I am pleased to inform the House that my Department has reached agreement with First Keolis TransPennine Express Limited to continue to operate train services in the North of England and Scotland. This means that the current franchisee will remain in place for a period of 12 months from 1st April. There will be an optional extension period of up to 10 months. This deal ensures that passengers across the North continue to benefit from TransPennine Express’ experience of running this franchise. It also paves the way for the new competitively-let TransPennine Express franchise, which will deliver new trains and improved services.   As I announced on the 8th January, my Department has reached agreement with Northern and TransPennine Express to ensure continuity of services after five of TransPennine Express’ Class 170 diesel trains are transferred to Chiltern Railways, by their owner, Porterbrook Rail Leasing Ltd. I can inform the House that my Department has agreed with Direct Rail Services Ltd to operate an enhanced train service on the Cumbrian Coast line, between Carlisle and Barrow-in-Furness as part of this deal. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS426

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

The Pay and Work Rights and ACAS Helplines

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My hon Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs (Jo Swinson) has today made the following statement.   Advice and Guidance services currently provided by the Pay and Work Rights Helpline will transfer to ACAS from 1 April. The Acas Helpline will, in addition to their usual services, answer queries on:   The National Minimum WageWorking for an employment agencyWorking hours, rest breaks and holidaysAgricultural workers’ rightsWorking for a gangmaster.   The new arrangement will allow for a “one-stop shop” service for employers and employees who will be able to contact Acas for free and confidential advice on all employment rights and workplace issues.   Acas advice can be accessed either online (www.acas.org.uk/helplineonline) or by phone on 0300 123 1100 between 8 am to 8 pm Mondays to Fridays and 9 am to 1 pm on Saturdays. This number costs the same to call as geographic 01/02 numbers, even from a mobile phone. It is included in callers’ free minutes on their landline and mobile tariffs. The current Pay and Work Rights Helpline is a 0800 number, which costs between 7p and 40p per minute for callers from a mobile phone. As the majority of calls to the Pay and Work Rights Helpline are from mobiles, the new arrangement is likely to be cheaper overall for users.   Having spoken to an Acas adviser, if an individual or third party wishes to make a complaint, Acas will transfer their call to the relevant government enforcement body. Individuals and third parties will continue to be able to complain directly online to the relevant government enforcement body as follows:   HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) - about the National Minimum WageEmployment Agency Standards inspectorate - about employment agency legislation (except Agency Worker Regulations)Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) – about agency workers in agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering or associated processing and packagingHealth and Safety Executive (HSE) - about working time issues, including maximum weekly working hoursDefra - about agricultural wages   Customers who ring the current Pay and Work Rights Helpline number from 1 April will receive an automated message advising them to ring the Acas Helpline. This automated message will be in place for at least the next 12 months.   More information on the above can also be found on www.gov.uk” 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS433

Prompt Payment – Implementing the Duty on Large Companies to Report on Payment Practices and Policies

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Rt hon Friend the Minister of State for Business, Enterprise and Energy (Matthew Hancock) has today made the following statement.   Tackling late payment is at the heart of our drive to help small businesses. Standing at £41.5 billion, late payment remains a significant problem for the UK economy. Small businesses shoulder the vast majority of this burden. The Government is absolutely clear that large companies should lead by example in paying their suppliers promptly and fairly, with 30 day terms the norm and 60 days the maximum. We need to improve corporate culture to drive home the message that it is not right to pay small suppliers late or to use unfair payment terms. I am therefore delighted to be able to announce today the Government’s plans for implementing clause 3 (Companies: Duty to Publish Report on Payment Practices) of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill.   These plans are subject to the will of Parliament. Given the importance of these proposals I believe it imperative to give those affected as much notice as possible to prepare for their future obligations.   Large companies will be required to report on their payment practices and policies from April 2016. We are therefore developing the secondary legislation, IT systems and guidance needed to give effect to them. The Government intends to lay secondary regulations early in the next Parliament.   In November 2014 I published a consultation paper, draft secondary regulations and accompanying pre-consultation stage Impact Assessment on detailed proposals for obliging large companies to publish detailed information about their payment practices and performance. This sought views in particular on: which companies should be obliged to report; the information they should be required to provide; the frequency and location of reporting; and the penalties for breaches of the reporting obligation. The consultation closed on 2 February 2015.   On 2 March 2015 the Government published a Summary of Responses. This summarised the views expressed by 59 respondents – primarily business representative bodies, trade organisations and professional bodies. I am grateful to all who responded, and look forward to continued dialogue and engagement as we develop and implement our proposals.   The majority of responses agreed with the Government’s proposals that the reporting duty should be mandated for large organisations – large private companies, large LLPs and all quoted companies. There was support for relying on Companies Act definitions to determine the threshold of “large”. Having considered the views of the Regulatory Policy Committee, which queried the original proposal for extending the requirement to small and medium quoted companies, I can now confirm that duty will only cover large quoted companies. This better meets the policy’s aim of highlighting and changing the payment practices of large organisations.   Having considered the views of respondents and arguments put forward during Parliamentary debates, we have concluded that large organisations should be required to report on the following narrative and metrics:   - standard payment terms, including any changes to these in the last reporting period. We will provide guidance to further clarify the expectations of companies in circumstances where they have different standard terms for different kinds of products; - average time taken to pay; - proportion of invoices paid beyond agreed terms; proportion of invoices paid in 30 days or less; paid between 31-60 days; and paid beyond 60 days. The Government will, however, not require reporting on the proportion of payments between 61-120 days and beyond 120 days, because we are clear that all payments beyond 60 days represent bad practice. This is why we have recently introduced a maximum 60 day payment term in the voluntary Prompt Payment Code; - amount of late payment interest owed and paid; - whether financial incentives were required to join or remain on supplier lists; - dispute resolution processes; - the availability of: e-invoicing; supply chain finance; preferred supplier lists - membership of a Payment Code   We will also consider whether to mandate reporting on other payment practices, such as reverse-fixed payments. At present, the Government is not minded to do so.   An indicative format for the report is attached.   Most respondents to the consultation argued that the Government’s original proposal for quarterly reporting was overly burdensome. The Government will consequently require reporting on a half-yearly basis, thereby striking a proportionate balance between reduced reporting obligations whilst still ensuring up-to-date data. To ensure high levels of transparency and comparability, large organisations will need to provide this in open data format to a single central digital location. The Government will work with stakeholders in the coming months to design and implement a system that is as business- and user-friendly as possible.   These proposals will allow organisations with good payment records to highlight and celebrate their payment performance, whilst raising public awareness and scrutiny of poorer payers. This has the potential to cause a fundamental shift in the payment performance of the UK’s large organisations. I look forward to working with businesses in the coming months to make this a reality, and tackle the UK’s late payment practices once and for all. 



Indicative format for the report 
(Word Document, 112.08 KB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS428

Department for Energy and Climate Change

WOOD REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION:  GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CALL FOR EVIDENCE

Baroness Verma: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Edward Davey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today. Today we are publishing the Government’s response to the Wood Review Call for Evidence, which sought views on how to best implement the Wood Review’s recommendations to empower the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) to be a strong and influential regulator, equipped with necessary powers to regulate and steward the UK Continental Shelf. The Call for Evidence ran from 6 November to 31 December 2014. During the Call for Evidence process, we held a number of industry workshops in London and Aberdeen to discuss, in detail, the questions posed in the Call for Evidence. The workshops were well attended by a wide range of industry stakeholders and the evidence gained from them, as well as from the written responses, has now been reviewed. The responses received were broadly supportive of the policy positions set out in the Call for Evidence and the stakeholder views and the evidence presented have been carefully considered in deciding how to move forward. Key policy decisions  Governance and scope: The OGA will be a strong, effective regulator, established as an Executive Agency on 1 April 2015, before (subject to the will of Parliament) transitioning to a Government Company in summer 2016. To effectively respond to the challenges posed to the UKCS, a significant shift in regulatory culture is needed, and the OGA will be a confident and credible regulator, creating long-lasting cultural change within the industry for the ultimate benefit of the UK. Delivering Maximising Economic Recovery from the UKCS (MER UK): The MER UK Strategy was a key recommendation made in the Wood Review. Work is ongoing apace between all members of the tripartite – Industry, the OGA and HMG – to define MER UK and develop a fit for purpose Strategy, which will help to deliver overall benefits to the UK. New powers: The OGA will be provided with necessary tools to be a strong and effective regulator and to enable delivery of its objectives. - Meetings access: We will ensure the OGA has the right to attend industry meetings as an observer. This should apply to all parties covered by the MER UK Strategy and should include meetings between operators within a joint venture, and meetings between licensees, where matters relating to licence obligations or matters relating to MER UK are being discussed.   - Sharing data and information: We want to ensure the OGA has sufficient powers to gather relevant information. We are therefore proposing to take a power in primary legislation, allowing the powers to be developed as the priorities of the OGA become clearer, and ensuring time for further discussion with industry to ensure disproportionate burdens are not placed on them. Provisions will also be made to allow for sanctions to be imposed for breaches of any data or information obligations.   - Dispute resolution: There is a recognised need for the OGA to have a non-binding role in the resolution of disputes. However, dispute resolution should be seen as a last resort and only used after the parties have made sufficient attempts to reach a resolution, working informally with the OGA. It is important that the OGA has the operational freedom to define the process by which it will consider and resolve disputes. However, the Government will set the scope of the scheme to ensure that the dispute resolution process assists in the delivery of MER UK. Any dispute that relates to licence terms or that impacts, or has the potential to impact, on MER UK may be resolved by the OGA and any party to the dispute or the OGA will be capable of initiating the process. The OGA will have information gathering powers and the ability to set timeframes for the provision of information, with the aim of speeding up the dispute resolution process. The OGA will also have the power to impose sanctions where parties do not comply with the dispute resolution process.   - Reviewing existing powers: A review of the existing powers is under way to ensure they remain fit for purpose and will sufficiently support the OGA, once transferred, in its role of regulating and stewarding the UKCS.   - Sanctions Regime: We will introduce a more gradated set of sanctions, which will include improvement notices and financial penalties. Sanctions will be applicable to all parties within scope of the MER UK strategy and will be applicable for breaches of MER UK as well as non-compliance with licence conditions and key powers exercised by the OGA. We are committed to ensuring sanctions are proportionate so will place a statutory limit of £1 million on individual financial penalties imposed. If, however, this amount does not prove to be a suitable deterrent in the future, the Government intends to reserve the right to increase this limit to £5 million subject to consultation and Parliamentary approval. Cost Recovery: The OGA’s costs will be met by a combination of the extant fees and charges regime, and a new levy on industry. We agree with industry that it is important that the levy is simple, transparent and cost-reflective. A detailed consultation on final proposals for administering the levy will be published later this month. In line with the early focus of the OGA, we have determined that initially the activities and costs, which fall under the levy will only relate to offshore petroleum licence holders. We intend that the OGA will begin collecting the levy in October 2015. The OGA will continue to recover the costs associated with permits and consents via the extant fees and charges regime. However, to comply with the Managing Public Money principles, the scope of the charging regime will be reviewed in due course. Conclusion The Call for Evidence was a crucial opportunity to hear industry’s views and shape our policies. We are now working hard to prepare a Bill which, subject to the will of the Government, will be introduced to Parliament during summer 2015. The Bill will establish the OGA as a Government Company, as well as providing it OGA with the above-mentioned powers. I will be depositing a copy of the Government Response in the Libraries of the House. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS427

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Tunisia: Terrorist Attack

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond) has made the following written Ministerial statement:I wish to update the House on the terrorist attack in Tunis on 18 March. I condemn this despicable murder of innocent people.A small group of terrorists attacked the Bardo Museum in central Tunis at around 11.30 GMT on 18 March. The gunmen fired on foreign tourists disembarking from buses outside the museum (adjacent to the Parliament building). As people took refuge in the museum, they were trapped inside by the gunmen. Tunisian security forces later entered the museum, killed two of the attackers and, we understand, arrested a third, bringing the incident to an end. The attack resulted in the death of two Tunisians and at least 20 foreign tourists, including one British national.As details of the attack became known, British Embassy consular staff deployed quickly to hospitals and to two cruise ships at the port, to check on the welfare of British nationals. They learned of a possible UK casualty whose location was, at that time, unknown. At around 18.00 GMT they learned the likely location of the casualty in hospital and redeployed. They provided consular support to the family throughout this time. On the morning of 19 March we received confirmation that, very sadly, Sally Adey had been killed in the attack. We continue to provide her family with consular support. My thoughts are with them at this very difficult time.The Prime Minister wrote to President Essebsi yesterday to express his condolences and assure him that Britain stood firmly with Tunisia in the face of this shared extremist threat. I spoke in similar terms to Prime Minister Habib Essid on the afternoon of the attack. I told him that the terrorists sought to undermine Tunisia’s successful transition to democracy, but that they would not succeed.Since Tunisia’s revolution, the British Government has worked with the Tunisian Government in a number of areas, including security and counter terrorism, where we have provided training and equipment and shared expertise. We stand ready to provide further assistance, including through the deployment of police from the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) to support the post attack investigation. SO15 and UK military Counter Terrorism experts will also be providing longer term capacity building. We will be working alongside EU partners and the US to help Tunisia manage the foreign fighter threat, whilst continuing to provide assistance in areas such as aviation security and tourist resort protection.We are aware of reports that ISIL has claimed responsibility and given names of the attackers, but the Tunisian investigation is continuing and this information is as yet unconfirmed.This brutal attack illustrates the threat from terrorism faced by Tunisia, and other countries in North Africa. Our Travel Advice prior to the attacks indicated that the threat of terrorism in Tunisia was high and that attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places visited by foreigners. We reviewed the threat level after the attack and the Travel Advice has been amended to indicate that further attacks are possible. We are not advising against travel to Tunisia. We keep our Travel Advice under constant review.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS435